Michigan Votes Forum

Rep. Brenda Clack on January 30, 2007, to prohibit a business owner from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. brendaclack@house.mi.gov Is Brenda Clack going to pay the taxes for the establishments that cannot conduct their business as the chose? We already have businesses that do not allow smoking in their establishments. That is their choice. We have businesses that allow smoking. That is their choice. Those choices are called "liberties." Customers can make a choice of which establishment they wish to frequent, ie..., those who allow or disallow smoking. We don't need "BIG BROTHER" government stepping on the rights of the individual, or free enterprise! For those who want to take away the freedom of choice from businesses and individuals -- how about we ban those from going into public places who own pets, because some people are allergic to pet dander? How about we ban people from going into public places wearing cologne, and perfume, because some people are allergic? How about banning all people from public places who eat peanuts and peanut butter, because some people have reactions to peanuts? The list can go on and on, and before long you'll have businesses leaving in droves, and closing down, and your rights will be whiddled down to a pinhole. Remember the idiot who wanted Vanna White banned from television because she said Vanna's voice caused her a neuroligical reaction. She had a choice not to listen to Vanna, but she wanted to instead take away Ms. White's right to be on television. Make your choice of what establishment you wish to give your business to, but quit thinking up ways to create a larger, all-intruding Big Brother government!

It seems that the "anonymous citizen" in comment #2 just did PROVE that second-hand smoke can be extremely damaging and dangerous to all that inhale it. This bill is good, healthful, and fair to all citizens who work for a living and breathe.

much tax money every year as you do, so essentially they should have the same right. Trust me depending on where you work, smoke is the least of your worries when you breathe.

AND WE CAN FINALLY STOP FINDING STUPID REASONS TO CATER TO THE "SMOKERS". As citizens, we have the right to do pretty much anything we want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.... smoking in places where the public eats, works, etc. infringes on other peoples right NOT TO GET CANCER! I mean give me a break people... some are saying well then just go to non-smoking facilities. WE ALL KNOW there really aren't many of those and that's because they WILL lose business if their neighboring businesses still allow smoking. However, if EVERYONE goes to non-smoking then no business will lose because the choice is GONE, and I'm sure the smokers aren't going stop dining out! So I guess California, New York and all the other states who have adopted this policy are just stupid and they're all losing money.. RIGHT! I would venture to guess their businesses are doing just fine, better actually, now that they don't have a polluntant contaminating the air. So WHY should the state have the right to take that choice away? Well... because IT'S A CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. Secondhand smoke has no filter... it's worse to the surrounding people's lungs than the filtered smoke that the person with the bad habit gets from inhaling. And maybe in small amounts it's not going to kill you tomorrow... but over time it could, and for the employees who have to work hours in that facility, it's significantly worse. IT'S BEEN PROVEN PEOPLE, THAT SECONDHAND SMOKE IS A HAZARD, A RISK, TO YOUR HEALTH. We drive on a road with alcohol in our systems... guess what, it's illegal! Why?... because we had to do something to stop the idiots who make that bad decision from doing it to PREVENT deaths. Deaths of the innocent public bystanders driving on the road. Smoking out in public, in facilities where the public gather, is a health hazard, and don't pretend they have a choice to dine elsewhere because they really don't. As I said before, if it's not across the board, a business will suffer if they try to make their facilty a safer, healthier place to be. And, in turn, they are almost forced NOT to do it. So is that right? To punish the business owner who's trying to make their facilty an enjoyable, carcinogen-free environment? Why are we continuing to cater to a BAD CHOICE people make that DOES indeed affect others health? It's ridiculous! Other states are doing this and doing it successfully. Isn't it about time we stop protecting the "rights" of someone to inhale toxins into their system, and think it's their right to do that even if it can KILL or harm others around them? I'm not against capitalism and the right to choose.... but when that choice can cause a significant risk to others, then I think it needs to be addressed. Why do we have laws? It's to protect people from harm... and we need to keep adding ammendments and changing those laws, to continue to PROTECT PEOPLE FROM HARM, when others CHOOSE to be irresponsible with their behaviors! If that makes me a "nanny"... THEN OH WELL, SO BE IT.

Soccer Moms and fat stinky people DON'T CAUSE CANCER TO THOSE AROUND THEM!!! Give me a break... are you seriously comparing them to smokers who blow a carcinogen into the air of a place where innocent people's lungs can be harmed?!? Reverse the argument.... why can't we have sex in the restaurant booth then, or drink and then drive on any road we want... hell, why aren't we allowed to do whatever it is we want in any facility we want.... why do we EVEN HAVE LAWS!?!?! Oh yeah, because THEY PROTECT PEOPLE!!!

What we eat, how much we eat, when we eat, when we go to bed, etc. DO NOT AFFECT THE HEALTH of others around us. Right now the restaurant business is set up for smokers, and if the restaurant owner tries to ban it, they will suffer loses if their neighboring compitition still allow smoking. So they are essentially forced to continue to allow a health hazard in their facility, so they don't go out of business, and the smoker, the one who made the BAD DECISION, the one who is negatively affecting others health is rewarded? Why are we protecting the rights of the one with the BAD HABIT?? What about the people who choose to be healthy, you're denying their right to have dinner in a clean air facility, because most restaurants can't afford to risk banning it.

Pet dander and a cancer causing pollutant are two VERY different things.

You don't have to attack this commentator just for his/her opinion. I find when people get angry, it's usually because they know they are wrong and don't have a leg to stand on. It isn't about "like" or "dislike". The smell of piss isn't a carcinogen genius. It's about forcing business owners to have an establishment that doesn't foster a proven health risk. Second hand smoke harms individuals, that's a proven fact. And legislators aren't trying to BAN smoking from the state of Michigan, they're just trying to keep it out establishments where the public frequent, to eliminate a significant health risk. If owner's won't do this on their own, then the state should do it for them, to protect people, the workers and the customers who really don't have a choice when they want to go out and eat... most restaurants still continue to foster smokers bad habits.

Most restaurants can't eliminate smoking because they know they'll lose money to other businesses that allow it. It's gotta be banned everywhere otherwise most places won't be able to afford going to non-smoking. It can't be their choice because most will choose to keep it, and unfortunately that's a health hazard.

This is idiotic. Ban smoking in PRIVATE work places??? What ever happened to a property owners rights. If you don't like the smoke, don't go to the business. Let FREE enterprise work this out. If people are so upset about the smoke, the business will lose and have to close or change. If people want to go there with or without the smoke, they are making a FREE choice. I quit smoking 9 years ago, but I will fight to the end a smokers right to do what they want on their own time. Who is complaining about the smoke in the bars anyway? The guy that has had too much to drink, that is going to drive home drunk with the woman he just met so they can have unprotected sex??? (thank you Bob & Tom) Yeah, he's a real good choice to be making decisions for other people. FREE enterprise is what has made this country great. Don't F%&* up a good system!!!

" some are saying well then just go to non-smoking facilities. WE ALL KNOW there really aren't many of those and that's because they WILL lose business if their neighboring businesses still allow smoking. " Exactly, I love it when you control freaks make my point for me. Next why don't you start telling PRIVATE BUSINESSES what to put on their menu? Maybe you want all restaurants to sell tufu. "I'm not against capitalism and the right to choose...." You are totally against capitalism and the right to choose! "don't pretend they have a choice to dine elsewhere because they really don't" I can show you 100's of reataurants in the detroit area that have no smoking sections that you couldn't smell smoke if you had a dogs nose. You just want to use the iron fist of government to force your ideas on everyone. Get a life and quit worrying that every little thing will kill you. it won't. Good Reading..... Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year By Robert Matthews and Victoria Macdonald PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers. The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates. The findings, published by an internationally respected UK-based team of air monitoring experts, are the biggest blow yet to the credibility of the Government's insistence that passive smoking causes fatal diseases. Until now, ministers have based calls for action on claims that those living with smokers face a 20 to 30 per cent increased risk of lung cancer.

"Most restaurants can't eliminate smoking because they know they'll lose money to other businesses that allow it." Look around, Most restaurants non smoking sections are totally smoke free. We are in the year 2007. Ventilation is very ggod. The days of the smoke filled bar and restaurant are gone. Quityerbitchen Sissy

So the musician who wrote in below, who had to endure 8 hours in a smoke filled bar for 20 years which seriously harmed him, and the wait staff that has to work in that section again and again, they aren't being harmed? It's MUCH worse for them than this one pathetic article you keep refering to.... oh but I guess they should just go work somewhere else. What if they can't? What if someone can't find a job in a smoke free restaurant? They should just be forced to deal with it, risk their lives, or not work? Give me a break. You will never convince me that all of the restaurant workers aren't being SIGNIFICANTLY harmed by secondhand smoke. So everyone, the workers trying to make a living without having to worry about their lungs, the customers who have to wait in line for an hour to eat, JUST to get a "non-smoking section", all of the people that just want to be free of carcinogens in the air of a restaurant, a facility where the "public" frequent, should all just bow down because of certain individuals who are SO WEAK AND SAD that they can't make it through a damn meal without lighting up... that is PATHETIC and disgusting, and sad. Smokers need to stop forcing their stupid ADDICTION on everyone else....demanding it's their "right" even though it's negatively affecting the workers and the rest of the restaurant population. It is SO ridiculous that this is such a huge issue, all because certain individauls can't even get through a MEAL without blowing their addiction in everyone else's face.

"the customers who have to wait in line for an hour to eat, JUST to get a "non-smoking section" All the places I have been to have giant non smoking sections and a small bar area where you can still smoke. "SO WEAK AND SAD that they can't make it through a damn meal without lighting up... that is PATHETIC and disgusting, and sad. Smokers need to stop forcing their stupid ADDICTION on everyone else...." Your true colors are showing. My guess is that you are the pathetic one and are extremely jealous when you see folks hanging out at the bar, having fun with friends and laughing. You need a life. " who had to endure 8 hours in a smoke filled bar for 20 years They should just be forced to deal with it, risk their lives, or not work?" Show me the proverbial "smoke filled bar" The ventilation is so good anymore that you can't hardly tell anyone is smoking. This isn't the 60's. Another little tidbit...ever notice how you get sick everytime you fly on a plane today? Seems that when they allowed smoking they had a total air replacement 12 to 15 times an hour. Today it is about 1.5 times per hour. You are breathing all the germs that anybody on the plane has. Also, I have sat in non smoking sections and it smells like b.o. because the smoke doesn't mask the obese folks feeding their pie holes.

restaraunt or a bar that i had to wait an hour to be seated. at least not in michigan. i've been to places in OTHER states that i have, but it was never to get a 'special non-smoking seat'. i'm not a smoker and i've never had a problem getting a non smoking seat. ever.

YOU to blow YOUR addiction in everybodies faces, and make them PAY for it.

"Pet dander and a cancer causing pollutant are two VERY different things." The cat juice is even deadlier to me. I'm an asthmatic and a sweater full of cat hair could kill me.

"blown smoke in others faces" but I have been subkected to sitting near large non bathing stinky folks that will ruin your dinner faster than a little whiff of smoke will. I propose that all fat people stay in their homes until they learn to wash and lose weight.

so you assume nonsmokers are the "jealous" ones. You think people have to slowly poison themselves and inhale toxins in order to "laugh at the bar with friends" and have a good time? I have a great group of friends and we all live it up at the bars and restaurants regularly, and we DON'T need a carcinogen to do that. In fact, when someone joins the group and chooses to smoke, it actually starts to ruin the good time because we have to deal with inhaling their smoke and taking on THEIR health risk. Maybe you're the jealous one... jealous that you CAN'T have a good time and enjoy life out with friends without an ADDICTION getting in the way. Exactly... the non-smoking section IS larger and people are STILL waiting for tables. Doesn't that tell you something? That people shouldn't have wait to have a meal because someone else's addiction is polluting the air. And what's with the constant "fat people" bashing? I really don't understand what fat people have to do with secondhand smoke infringing on a workers right to have a safe working condition? Fat people, while they may have their own set of health or body odor issues, as you suggest, don't cause proven health risks to the waitstaff. I don't have a problem with "fat people" in a restaurant because their habits are not a proven health risk TO ME! Suggesting that the secondhand smoke risk isn't great enough to the workers or patrons, so it should just be dealt with, is crazy. If there's ANY risk, even if it's minor, it shouldn't be a smokers right to decide that risk is OK for the employees and the rest of the people aroud them. If a waiter can't find a job in a non-smoking establishment, then they are forced to risk their health in a smoking envrionment, to make a living, and that's not right.

Dedicated Socialist. Keep Up The Good Work. One day all freedom will be gone. Maybe if you are so afraid all the time just lock yourself in a cage and you will be safe. oh, by the way, you do take cabs home after you get done "we all live it up at the bars and restaurants regularly" Don't you. You liberals are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I have ever seen.

cost society lots of money. They also ruin other folks good times. They make air travel terrible, cost more in fuel, make rental car outfits raise their prices to fix broken seats and springs, pollute the air with their foul smell and germs etc. Study: Fat Workers Cost Employers More By CARLA K. JOHNSON Associated Press Writer CHICAGO — Overweight workers cost their bosses more in injury claims than their lean colleagues, suggests a study that found the heaviest employees had twice the rate of workers' compensation claims as their fit co-workers. Obesity experts said they hope the study will convince employers to invest in programs to help fight obesity. One employment attorney warned companies that treating fat workers differently could lead to discrimination complaints. Duke University researchers also found that the fattest workers had 13 times more lost workdays due to work-related injuries, and their medical claims for those injuries were seven times higher than their fit co-workers. Overweight workers were more likely to have claims involving injuries to the back, wrist, arm, neck, shoulder, hip, knee and foot than other employees. The findings were based on eight years of data from 11,728 people employed by Duke and its health system. Researchers found that workers with higher body mass indexes, or BMIs, had higher rates of workers' compensation claims. The most obese workers — those with BMIs of 40 or higher — had the highest rates of claims and lost workdays. BMI is a measure of height and weight. A 6-foot, 300-pound person, for example, has a BMI of just over 40. Study co-author Dr. Truls Ostbye said the findings should encourage employers to sponsor fitness programs. "There are many promising programs," Ostbye said. "We'd like to see more research about what is truly effective." James Hill, who heads the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado, said managers will pay attention to the findings because injuries mean more immediate financial losses than the future health-care costs of diabetes and heart disease. "When you see that claims rates double, I think that's going to get people's attention," Hill said. But there isn't enough good information about employer-sponsored programs that work, said John Cawley, an expert in the economics of obesity at Cornell University. Employers don't know whether paying for nutrition counseling, obesity surgery or anti-obesity drugs through health insurance makes economic sense, he said. "It's now apparent to everybody that obesity is a big problem," Cawley said. "But the research isn't there to know where to get biggest bang for the buck." Cawley noted that BMI does not distinguish muscle from fat and can equate a buff body builder to a couch potato. Although BMI, a measure of height and weight, is used in most obesity research, Cawley's research has found that blacks are particularly likely to be misclassified as obese by BMI. New York employment attorney Richard Corenthal cautioned employers not to overreact with discriminatory policies. "Employers need to be careful not to view this study as a green light to treat obese or overweight workers differently," Corenthal said. The study, appearing in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, got funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. ___

People with asthma and allergies severe enough to cause "death" are a MINOR percentage of the population. Secondhand smoke negatively affects ALL PEOPLE, not a small amount of people with health conditions! EVERYONE'S LUNGS in the population are put at risk.

So you also ASSUME that I have to be drinking to have a good time? Do alcohol and smoking always have to be present to live it up with friends? If I do decide to drink, I'm responsible enough to NOT drive and risk OTHER people's live's. Can a smoker say that? FAT PEOPLE MAY COST MORE BUT THEIR ACTIONS AREN'T A PROVEN HEALTH RISK TO OTHER PEOPLE! Oh, and by the way... I'm a REPUBLICAN... but one smart enough to look at each issue individually!

2nd hand smoke has never been proven to be a hazard, if it was most of us would not be here today since most 50 year olds were raised in a home with smokers, rode in cars with smokers, ate dinner with smokers, etc. You still can't admit that in most restaurants today, in the non smoking section it is very rare that you can even get a whiff of smoke. This will never harm you. Your argument is for the all powerful nanny government to outlaw something that you just don't like. Again, get over it. Quit worshipping the earth or the bunnies or your body and go back to church, it might make it easier for you to enjoy life rather than always be screaming that the sky is falling.

don't drink and don't smoke you should get out of the bar and quit taking up space that real customers could be using. Just stay home, you don't sound like much fun anyhow. You are not a republican, you are a rino. A republican would never want the government to create more regulations and rules over PRIVATE BUSINESS. Please vote for the socialist next time, you will be much happier when you come out of the closet.

i hear the liberals on this site whining about 'the government has to do something about other people smoking around me'. it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM SMOKERS. IT'S YOURS. it's not the bar owner's job either. IT'S YOUR JOB. if you don't like doing YOUR job, just leave it there, and someone else will do it for you, or it will be left undone. you left the job alone, and the rest of the world went on without you. the bars catered to THEIR CUSTOMERS, many of whom smoke. they work hard to KEEP their customers, no matter whether or not they agree with them smoking or not. you would have them LOSE their customers to some silly, self centered law passed by liberal legislators that take away RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS from honest citizens. being free means being able to hurt yourself if you want. you don't have to agree with it, but it's true. being nannied means NOT BEING FREE. you may not agree with anyone smoking, but it's their right to smoke. you have rights too. it's NOT your right to tell them NOT TO SMOKE, JUST LIKE IT'S NOT THEIR RIGHT TO TELL YOU TO GO OUT AND BUY A GUN, THEN WEAR A PINK DRESS WHEN YOU SHOOT IT. a big part of freedom is ALLOWING EVERYONE TO BE FREE. REMEMBER, your rights end at the end of your nose. they do not extend beyond that. if you don't like being around smoking, it's YOUR responsibility to do something about it. AT YOUR EXPENSE. not ours. it is NOT your right to demand that others quit being free. if you are SO concerned about second hand smoke, DON'T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO IT. don't go where it is. don't be around it at all. you are FREE to make that decision. it may mean that you are NOT free to go where smokers are, but, that's a decision YOU made. and you are always FREE to change your mind.

if it's a hazard to your health, don't go to that restaraunt. go to another. simple as that. exercise YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE SMOKE FREE, GO SOMWHERE ELSE. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE AROUND SMOKERS, GO THERE. now, wasn't that easy???

After reading all of this I still cannot believe people still think that smoking in a public place is a right that should be protected. Yes, businesses may be "privately" owned, but they do have regulations they have to follow. For example, they have to follow a fire code, they have to pass a health inspection, they have rules to follow in order to have a liquor license. These are rules and laws put in place to protect the consumer. These restaurants may be privately owned but they are open to the PUBLIC. And as such, they ARE responsible for creating a safe environment. I can't move my table and chair in front of a "fire exit", I can't drive around their "privately" owned parking lot drunk, I can't have sex in the booth of that restaurant, because it's a place out in public, and because it's against the law. So just because it's a privately owned place, there are still rules and laws that they have to follow in order to protect the public from harm. What people don't seem to understand is that free will, freedoms, and liberties, are only that, when they don't interfere with someone else's freedoms and liberties. Telling non-smokers to go somewhere else is not realistic. It is a restaurant for the public. And unless the business is passing out "member's only" jackets, and creating some sort of private club, it is a public venue. As with any business that must follow fire codes, health codes, and all of the rest of the rules and laws that govern our state, I don't see why banning smoking from restaurants shouldn't be included as a "health code". It is a fact that secondhand smoke hurts other individuals, and as a business, they have a responsiblity to make sure their environment is up to code in that regard. As it's been said, your individual rights end at your nose, so if you go out in public, you shouldn't be able to do anything that could potentially harm that public. Our freedoms are no longer freedoms when they interfere with another person's rights. If people want to smoke, it's their right to smoke... in the privacy of their OWN homes. Not in a restaurant for the public. And it IS the restaurant owner's responsibility to see that fire codes and health codes are followed to protect it's patrons. Smoking has now become a health issue for those that are around it, so as a business, that should be included in the "health codes" that they are obligated to follow.

"people still think that smoking in a public place is a right that should be protected." They outlawed smoking in public buildings a while ago. This is about government telling a PRIVATE businessman how to run his business! "It is a restaurant for the public." Wrong again mental midget, it's a business that a PRIVATE citizen poured his or her hard earned money and sweat into in hopes of making money to feed his family. "It is a fact that secondhand smoke hurts other individuals" Not Proven at all "Smoking has now become a health issue for those that are around it, so as a business, that should be included in the "health codes" that they are obligated to follow." Then let's make it illegal for the PRIVATE owner to sell anything but tofu to fat people. After all, it's his "obligation" to make sure you do healty things. Where does it end comrad??????

"People with asthma and allergies severe enough to cause "death" are a MINOR percentage of the population." So we just throw them under the bus in your little workers paradise? You are one of the useful idiots.

If a restaurant owner serves a high fat meal to an overweight person, the only arteries being negatively affected are those of that ONE individual. So if that ONE individual wants to damage is or her own body, as long as it's not negatively affecting the other customers or the workers, they have the right to do that. That's "where it ends". It ends when the health decision doesn't affect ANYONE ELSE. A restaurant owner shouldn't be asked to force their customers to be healthy, but they SHOULD be forced to protect them as a whole while they're in that facility. That is why they have fire codes and health codes that they MUST follow. The decision to smoke in a restaurant doesn't just affect that ONE individual, it affects the other customers and workers health. Pretending secondhand smoke doesn't hurt the customers and employees of the restaurant is naive.

that government rules and regulations don't hurt PRIVATE business is naive. Again, if you don't like the way a man runs his business, go somewhere else. Vote with your feet. Quit running to mommy. Don't try to use the iron fist of government to force your agenda on others.

when it puts the overall health of the patrons at risk. "And if you don't like the way a man runs his businesss go somewhere else" ... is that what you say to the fire and health inspectors when they visit? No... because you would be closed! You are required to have regulations in place to protect your customers. Why don't you talk about what this is really about. You don't care about a person's civil liberties or rights, freedoms or free will. You're just interested in the bottom line and making a buck.... even if that means sacrificing the health of your customers. Believe me, if this passes and you find that just like California, New York and all the other states doing this effectively, that you're not losing any money in the process, this argument isn't going to be one you even care about anymore.

stop fighting the government takeover of everything. Are you so naive to think it will end here? Look to ontario, a friend owns a business and doesn't smoke and never did allow it. A month ago he was visited by the government agent to look for compliance. He explained that they didn't allow smoking and never did. After the government agent was done looking through drawers, desks, under counters, in cabinets, toolboxes etc. (over an hour in a small business) for signs of an ashtray he almost had to be restrained. He now agrees that more regulations are bad and he understands why they took away their weapons first. Like I said, you are one of the "useful idiots". Go look it up since you probably didn't learn the term in the internment camp you called skool.

"Privately owned restaurants serve the public" They serve customers who are free to patronize their place or not. Maybe after you shove your agenda through and he is running out of customers you can use the force of government to make the serfs patronize his business.

doesn't run the business. the owner does. or at least DID. all the fire marshall can do is inspect to see if the business is up to fire code. that's it. it can't see if the food is safe, or good, it can't tell if the drinks are watered, it can't even make a suggestion about smoking. we don't mind obeying the law, when the law doesn't step on liberties. but this law does exactly that. you would have us give up our freedoms by the bushelbasket. you do it willingly, in the name of the nanny state. you expect us to do it too. i for one will not. you believe that "IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PETITION THE GOVERNMENT, SELL THE IDEA AS "GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC" AND I'LL GET MY WAY.". you believe that YOUR WILL IS STRONGER THAN THE PEOPLE'S. you also believe that the customer is never right. after katrina, several 'newly non-smoking' restaraunts, some over a hundred years old, re-opened. and struggled along. petitions to the city council and the governor by CUSTOMERS got her to issue 'variances' to the smoking ordinance. new york and california also issue 'variances' to certain restaraunts, after they pay the appropriate fee, of course, on a daily basis. this is not a law about 'the public'. it's a law about THE MONEY. watch and see how long it takes for jennie to issue 'variances' for a large fee.

Obesity Is Contagious By Michael Fumento Published 8/1/2007 What makes you fat? Eating cheesy-poofs while watching Sex in the City reruns? Wolfing down a Wendy's "Baconator," comprising a double cheeseburger with six strips of bacon that could feed everyone in Darfur for a week? How about when you get the urge to exercise you lie down until it goes away, as one CEO famously put it? Yes, to all of the above. But these are all specific contributors to obesity driven by larger forces that are making us, well, larger. One of the most important of these, as a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows, is that having fat social contacts makes you fatter. Obesity is contagious.

Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science By Michael Fumento Scripps Howard News Service, Sept. 11, 2003 Copyright 2003 Scripps Howard News Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's den covered with catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection. Then rather than being PC and hiding your data in a vast warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical journals. That's what research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook discovered last May. That's when they reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality," adding, however "a small effect" can't be ruled out. At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling." Many are mere slurs several grades below even sophomoric. Some demanded the BMJ retract the study because, as one put it, the "tobacco industry will use it." (It didn't). Another made the rather draconian call to ban all use of statistics in science, lest they be put to such wicked purposes as this. "It is astounding how much of the criticism springs from (personal attacks) rather than from scientific criticism of the study itself," observed one of the few supportive writers. Said another: "As a publisher of the leading Austrian medical online news service, I feel quite embarrassed following the debate on this article. Many postings look more like a witch hunt than a scientific debate." Sadly, one of the most pathetic responses came from Dr. Michael Thun, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society. The ACS started the study and formerly collaborated with the authors. Thun claimed that since there was so much exposure to smokers back in the 1950s and 1960s that essentially everybody was a second-hand smoker. This logic puts the wife of a two-pack-a-day husband in the same category as somebody who once stumbled into a smoky bar. It negates all ETS studies based on spousal exposure including those serving Thun's purposes. But based on the subjects' own recollection decades later in the UCLA study, spousal smoking was indeed a good indicator of their total exposure to second-hand smoke. One refrain running through the attacks is, "Why take seriously a study that contradicts what everyone already knows?" But "what everyone knows" is wrong. It's the UCLA study that's very much in the majority. A 1999 Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive. ("Statistical significance" refers to whether an increased or decreased risk falls outside the bounds of what could be expected by chance.) The lead author? Why, Michael Thun! Likewise, a 2002 analysis of 48 studies regarding a possible ETS link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was actually significantly negative, and 37 that like Enstrom and Kabat's were insignificant either way. This glass of "pure spring" water contains traces of both cyanide and arsenic, but in levels far too low to cause harm. The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while ETS may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. In scientific terminology, that's called a "tiny amount." Unable to find significant faults in the UCLA study itself, critics repeatedly harped on what Enstrom and Kabat had clearly stated – that some of the funding was from the tobacco industry. As they explained, this became necessary when the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which was specifically set up to support this type of research, stopped their funding and no other sources were available. The big bucks go to those who "discover" that ETS causes everything from pimples to piles. Both governmental and private organizations have directed tens of millions of dollars to groups promoting ETS as a killer, perhaps even a greater killer than active smoking! Meanwhile Big Tobacco has essentially extinguished its efforts on ETS, reserving new spending and political capital for other fights. So give the BMJ and Enstrom and Kabat an "F" for political correctness. But give them an "A" for honesty and courage. Disclaimer: Neither Michael Fumento nor the Hudson Institute receive money from tobacco interests. Read Michael Fumento's other work on smoking. Michael Fumento is the author of numerous books. His next book, BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World, will be published in October 2003 by Encounter Books.

This is actually laughable! You're seriously comparing this to a carcinogen? Wow, you really are grasping at straws now. The article also happens to mention this refers to "social contacts", people you actually "know" and spend a signifcant amount of time with. Not strangers in a restaurant. Smoke, pure and simple is a health hazard. Restaurants have a responsibilty to run a business that is safe. You so conveniently disregarded the "health inspector" by the way. You know, the one that has to come in and make sure a restaurant owner is not making people SICK, that their employees are washing their hands, and that they don't have mold or bacteria growing anywhere...or, I don't know, say making sure they aren't allowing CARCINOGENS TO CONTAMINATE THE AIR! Wanting a business to maintain a safe and clean environment does not make me a brainwashed drone, mindlessly being "manipulated" by the "all powerful" government, so to keep throwing around a pathetic little term like "useless idiots" is a cop out. Paranoid much? The government isn't ALWAYS on a witch hunt, trying to take away liberties from the people. In this circumstance, I truly believe it is meant to promote healthy working conditions and a "clean" environment for the patrons.

say anything about cigarettes, as they are legal, and taxed heavily. he cannot opine one way or the other on the subject, by law. now, you want to try again? let's cut the taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products and just ban it altogether. let's see how far the state gets then.